In Samar Paul v. State of West Bengal, CRR 1438 of 2024 (decided 7 September 2026), Justice Uday Kumar of the Calcutta High Court rejected a husband's contention that the ex parte divorce decree he had obtained in 2022 extinguished his obligation to maintain his former wife. Anchoring the decision in Explanation (b) to Section 125(1) CrPC — which defines "wife" to include a woman divorced by her husband who has not remarried — and in the Supreme Court's three-judge ruling in Vanamala v. H.M. Ranganatha Bhatta, (1995) 5 SCC 299, the Court held that dissolution of the marriage "does not ipso facto wipe out his statutory obligation". The same position carries into Section 144 of the BNSS, which replicates the definition. A useful, frequently misunderstood point of maintenance law, freshly reaffirmed.
The background
The parties married in 1995 and had two children. The relationship deteriorated, and after an alleged assault in 2018 the husband sued for divorce, obtaining an ex parte decree in June 2022. The wife had earlier secured interim maintenance of Rs. 3,500 per month for herself and their daughter. The husband then attacked the continuation of the maintenance proceedings in revision: divorced, he argued, she was no longer his "wife", and his obligations had ended with the marriage.
The statutory answer
"Explanation (b) to Section 125(1) explicitly enacts that 'wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by her husband and has not remarried... The dissolution of a marriage, even though a decree secured by the husband, does not ipso facto wipe out his statutory obligation to maintain his former wife, provided she remains unmarried and unable to maintain herself."
The Court traced the rule to Vanamala, where a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court authoritatively construed Explanation (b): divorce does not extinguish the husband's maintenance liability, which continues in full force until the wife contracts a second marriage. The revision failed, and the maintenance proceedings survive the decree.
Why husbands keep raising — and losing — this point
The argument confuses two different legal relationships. The matrimonial decree governs marital status; Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS) is a measure of social justice aimed at preventing destitution, and Parliament deliberately extended it beyond subsisting marriages to divorced women. An ex parte decree adds nothing to the argument: if anything, a decree passed without the wife's participation is a weaker foundation for stripping her of statutory protection, and remains open to being set aside on sufficient cause shown.
| Event | Effect on Section 144 BNSS maintenance |
|---|---|
| Divorce decree (contested or ex parte, either party) | No automatic effect — claim survives |
| Wife's remarriage | Entitlement ceases from remarriage |
| Wife able to maintain herself | Claim fails on merits; changed circumstances ground alteration under Section 146 BNSS |
| Comprehensive settlement with paid permanent alimony | Relevant to quantum/adjustment; waiver clauses are scrutinised and destitution is not enforced |
Notes for Delhi practice
Delhi family courts apply the same framework daily. For wives: a divorce decree — including one passed ex parte while proceedings went unattended — is not the end of the road; the Section 144 BNSS petition continues, and arrears remain executable. For husbands: the durable route to closing maintenance exposure is a comprehensive settlement with a recorded one-time payment, or evidence-based challenges to entitlement and quantum — not the status argument, which courts reject with near-uniformity. Advocates drafting settlement deeds should say expressly what amount is paid towards past arrears, future maintenance and permanent alimony, so that the adjustment picture is unambiguous if either side later returns to court.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a divorced woman claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC / Section 144 BNSS?
Yes. Explanation (b) to Section 125(1) CrPC — carried into Section 144 BNSS — defines "wife" to include a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried. Her claim continues until remarriage, provided she is unable to maintain herself.
Does it matter who obtained the divorce, or that it was ex parte?
No. The Court emphasised that even a decree secured by the husband — including an ex parte decree passed in the wife's absence — does not extinguish the statutory obligation. The definition turns on the status of being divorced and unremarried, not on who moved first or how the decree was obtained.
When does the obligation actually end?
Principally on the wife's remarriage, or where she is shown able to maintain herself, or in the disqualification situations the statute itself sets out. Payment of the full permanent alimony settled or awarded in matrimonial proceedings can also be relevant to quantum, but the Section 125/144 remedy is not erased by the decree alone.
How do maintenance orders interact with alimony under the Hindu Marriage Act?
They operate in parallel but courts prevent double recovery: amounts received under one head are adjusted against the other. A husband paying permanent alimony under Section 25 HMA should place that on record in the Section 144 BNSS proceeding for adjustment; a wife receiving token or no alimony retains the statutory remedy in full.